Narrative:

Small transport operated under contract for paradropping at the parachute center, goldsby, ok, for the weekend of 4/91. As pilot of the small transport, I was told by the parachute center management that a NOTAM had been filed (in accordance with far 105). Evidently the pilot of a transient aircraft, or some other person, was surprised by the jumping activity, was concerned that they had received no warning of same and were also concerned about the jumpers clearance from clouds. Upon checking the status of the NOTAM, FSS had no record of it. The parachute center management claimed they had indeed filed it, had been doing so for years. Unfortunately, the phone # they had always called on was a # that there was no recording device on and the parachute center management had no record of the person they had talked to. There seems to be a flaw in the system in that approach control had been talking to me all day, had been approving jumps, and was quite happy to let us jump west/O a NOTAM being on file. I believe that local ATC facs should be advised of any NOTAMS requiring their participation. I had also learned a valuable lesson: always file such NOTAMS myself and get the person's name who accepted the NOTAM. Jumps were conducted when there were areas of broken to scattered clouds in the vicinity. I had checked the conditions below for clouds and traffic prior to each drop and was satisfied that proper conditions were met, but other observers who are not directly above the jumpers may feel differently due to the viewing angle. A jumper passing through a large clear area in the cloud may appear to go through a cloud. I have no solution on how to change these observer's perceptions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF JUMP ACFT DISCOVERS NOTAM APPARENTLY NOT FILED AND OBSERVER QUESTIONS CLOUD CLRNC OF JUMPERS.

Narrative: SMT OPERATED UNDER CONTRACT FOR PARADROPPING AT THE PARACHUTE CENTER, GOLDSBY, OK, FOR THE WEEKEND OF 4/91. AS PLT OF THE SMT, I WAS TOLD BY THE PARACHUTE CENTER MGMNT THAT A NOTAM HAD BEEN FILED (IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 105). EVIDENTLY THE PLT OF A TRANSIENT ACFT, OR SOME OTHER PERSON, WAS SURPRISED BY THE JUMPING ACTIVITY, WAS CONCERNED THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED NO WARNING OF SAME AND WERE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE JUMPERS CLRNC FROM CLOUDS. UPON CHKING THE STATUS OF THE NOTAM, FSS HAD NO RECORD OF IT. THE PARACHUTE CENTER MGMNT CLAIMED THEY HAD INDEED FILED IT, HAD BEEN DOING SO FOR YEARS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PHONE # THEY HAD ALWAYS CALLED ON WAS A # THAT THERE WAS NO RECORDING DEVICE ON AND THE PARACHUTE CENTER MGMNT HAD NO RECORD OF THE PERSON THEY HAD TALKED TO. THERE SEEMS TO BE A FLAW IN THE SYS IN THAT APCH CTL HAD BEEN TALKING TO ME ALL DAY, HAD BEEN APPROVING JUMPS, AND WAS QUITE HAPPY TO LET US JUMP W/O A NOTAM BEING ON FILE. I BELIEVE THAT LCL ATC FACS SHOULD BE ADVISED OF ANY NOTAMS REQUIRING THEIR PARTICIPATION. I HAD ALSO LEARNED A VALUABLE LESSON: ALWAYS FILE SUCH NOTAMS MYSELF AND GET THE PERSON'S NAME WHO ACCEPTED THE NOTAM. JUMPS WERE CONDUCTED WHEN THERE WERE AREAS OF BROKEN TO SCATTERED CLOUDS IN THE VICINITY. I HAD CHKED THE CONDITIONS BELOW FOR CLOUDS AND TFC PRIOR TO EACH DROP AND WAS SATISFIED THAT PROPER CONDITIONS WERE MET, BUT OTHER OBSERVERS WHO ARE NOT DIRECTLY ABOVE THE JUMPERS MAY FEEL DIFFERENTLY DUE TO THE VIEWING ANGLE. A JUMPER PASSING THROUGH A LARGE CLEAR AREA IN THE CLOUD MAY APPEAR TO GO THROUGH A CLOUD. I HAVE NO SOLUTION ON HOW TO CHANGE THESE OBSERVER'S PERCEPTIONS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.